Kucinich as thorn in my side

[Caligulette]

One of the big things democrats like to trot out in arguments about how the Dems Really AreAnti-War, No, I mean It, is Denis Kucinich. Now, at one point I was almost willing to believe him to be some kind of party dupe- unaware of his role within the party (keeping the leftish elements in line, basically), but that was blown out of the water in 2004 with his "Well, support Kerry anyway, because we all have to stick together now" schtick at the DemCon. Never mind that Kucinich had been making hay over his anti-war stance, and Kerry's running on his war veteran status (also never mind that Kucinich's anti-war supporters were kept out of the convention hall, and any anti-war messages were forbidden from the floor be they in t-shirt, sign, or spoken form).

So, now? Kucinich has said that if he does not acheive the needed 15% of votes necessary to go on to the second round, he will back Obama. Obama. Who recently told Foreign Affairs:

“We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.”

So, not exactly non-militaristic, eh? I mean- no matter what your stand on the war, and on future wars, Kucinich is pretty clearly not an anti-war candidate at heart if he;s willing to endorse first Kerry, and now Obama- both of whom are clearly hawks.

[ChuckF]

Kerry, at least, voted against Kyl-Lieberman. Clinton (whose article in Foreign Affairs is fairly terrifying) voted for it. Obama didn't bother voting at all.

I'm not that troubled by Obama's statement that you quoted. Obama and Clinton are right, IMO, that we need to modernize and possibly expand the military. I'm more comfortable with Edwards' position of streamlining the military rather than simply adding troops, but I honestly don't know enough about defense policy to judge.

I read Obama's article in FA, and I didn't find a whole lot of policy in there. [Bill] Clintonian multi-lateral interventionism plus a lot of 'duhs' like non-proliferation and foreign aid boosts. Both candidates (and Edwards too) fail on my pet issue, US's Russia policy, clinging to the patronizing tone of the 90s.

Now, about Kucinich. I agree with Kucinich about a lot of domestic issues, but I think his foreign policy is just shit-awful. Reading through his website on foreign policy, which is at the top of his "Issues" section, makes me wince. First, Kucinich, like too many people and most all of the media, hasn't figured out that just being anti-war is not a foreign policy in and of itself. Second, his rejection of war as a tool of foreign policy strikes me as untenable. The ability to project force rapidly and effectively underlies much of the world political structure. He has two pretty big howlers in the very first paragraph of the page linked above:

In an interconnected world of trading partners afloat with nuclear weapons, war is unthinkable.

Unthinkable? No.

The Europeans have turned away from the catastrophic wars of the last century which took over 100 million lives to embrace a new understanding of diplomacy and dialogue as well as a new understanding of patriotism.

Well, no, not really. Unless Serbs and Bosnians and Croats aren't "Europeans." Or the UK. How about the Russians and the bloody mess of Chechnya? Kucinich either reveals a rather narrow conception of Europe - a Cold War kind of thinking, even - or a lack of insight. It's also a lot easier for Western Europe to turn away from war when the US handles defense. He wants the US to take its nuclear weapons systems off alert and ultimatey destroy them; do you think the French or the British will give them up willingly?

Finally, I find his faith in international institutions misplaced.

All that said, I don't know why Kucinich backed Obama in Iowa. Maybe to increase his possible margin over Hillary and steal some momentum. I doubt it had much to do with policy issues.

It seems like the Democratic race, at least in terms of foreign policy statements, is a search to find the least bad policy rather than the best. I think I like Bill Richardson's the most, and I think he's a very strong contender to be a competent Secretary of State. I can't tell Hillary's Iraq policy from W's in the dark. But it's also important to remember that campaign foreign policy rarely equals administration foreign policy. The candidate is free to formulate policy without the constraints under which the president works. Foreign policy (usually) changes more slowly than domestic policy because it is subject to a great number of restrictive variables, so I'm not even sure it matters what the candidates say now.

[Watser?]

I know this much: for the Middle East it never mattered one iota whether there was a Democratic or a Republican president. All of them pretend to be 'honest brokers' in the Israel/Palestine conflict and none of them are (and they aren't fooling anyone either). The only constraints on their virtually unlimited pro-Israeli stand are the Saudis, the Egyptians and the Europeans (who are pro-Israeli too, just not as much).

[Dingfod]

I am sick and tired of having to choose between the lesser of two weasels.

[AndyH]

Well, I'm new here, but I've been active in politics since I did my first "standout" on a streetcorner for JFK at the age of eight.

I am also a New Hampshireite, the type of mainstream Democratic voter that all of the primary candidates have sought since day one, and I am fed up with all of the so-called "frontrunners", especially in the area of foreign policy.

Kucinich's campaign, if he were sincere in his anti-war views, ought to be focusing on bringing his ideas and platforms to the attention of the likely nominees - instead, he is not only taking a position that is IMHO too far from the mainstream to be taken seriously, but is also actively sabotaging the campaigns of the candidates who have most strenuously included realistic proposals that could improve the chances of world peace considerably (notably Richardson and Dodd).

I picked Bill Richardson as the candidate with the best experience, the greatest electability against the GOP smear machine, and the one with (by far) the most detailed position statements and the ones closest to my own views on the greatest number of areas. I've been working on his campaign for nearly a year now, and have had the opportunity here in the land of uber-retail politics to see him up close and personal. Since then I've added another reason to endorse him - he is the most "genuine", honest, and open of the candidates - the only one I've seen who has actually asked questions and indicated that he might be open to changing his mind or positions on some issues. This guy has the quality of being "real" - a quality I've seen in relatively few presidential aspirants over the years.

Oh, and of course he at least has some positions to change - unlike Clinton and Obama, who seem to be firmly in favor of peace, justice, motherhood, and apple pie (low-sugar, low-far, heart-healthy version only), but about as specific as a toothpaste commercial.

I'm tired of hearing Obama tell us he's the only candidate who will share the "hard truths" the American people need to hear. When does he plan on actually sharing any of those with us? And though his statement in Foreign Policy is not particularly troubling to me, it is about as meaningless as his claims of "bringing people together". Obama is IMHO a one-term state senator with two years in the US Senate, and virtually zero experience at bipartisanship in resolving the serious issues of the day. He may make a wonderful POTUS some day, but he's not giving any indications of how he'd do this at the moment.

I'm tired of hearing Clinton talk about her "experience" and telling us she will "solve our problems" (direct quote from her latest campaign commercial). If you wanted to set up a target for the Republicans to aim at, you couldn't do any better. And what exact "leadership experience" does she bring, beyond one reasonably successful senate term? Sleeping next to a previous POTUS? Her highly successful campaign to bring us national health care reform? Her term as an AUSA? If her opponents want to paint her as simplistic, paternalistic (or maternalistic? ), condescending, and naive they couldn't do better than her own campaign seems to have done.

Edwards's "warrior for the working class" persona doesn't seem to be making headway in New Hampshire, the jokes about hundred thousand dollar speaking fees and four hundred dollar haircuts aren't helping much.

As for Kucinich - anyone who has seen him in action at the local retail level has not IMHO formed a high opinion of his open-ness, realism, or even sincerity. His wife is a far more persuasive candidate, to me Kucinich seems to be in the race primarily for his own ego.

I haven't given up hope for Richardson, if Dodd and Biden fall by the wayside and the weaknesses of the Democratic frontrunners become clear, there's still hope. He'd make a far better POTUS than any of the candidates on either side IMHO, and the negatives on the top Democratic candidates may still have a cumulative toll that is too much to bear. So I'm still working the phones, sending in my $25 and $50 contributions, planting signs, and hoping against hope for a good showing in both Iowa and New Hampshire (I'd be happy with a STRONG fourth place in both). If he gets above 15% in New Hampshire, there's a good chance I'll be going to Denver as a delegate, I was one of the three men elected from our congressional district at the Richardson caucuses.

Our system has become so front-loaded that there is no longer any chance to see how a candidate bears up under fire, no chance to determine how vulnerable they are to attack politics, no chance to see how they'll personally react under the heat of battle. It seems as though we are 90% of the way toward just giving the nomination to the candidate who's raised the most money.

I don't have any better ideas, but the present system is becoming a joke as cruel as the inveitability of the nominations in 2000 was.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

I mean- no matter what your stand on the war, and on future wars, Kucinich is pretty clearly not an anti-war candidate at heart if he;s willing to endorse first Kerry, and now Obama- both of whom are clearly hawks.

I don't know that it's fair to say that one can't be anti-war unless one is willing to make that into one's sole significant single issue.

I consider myself anti-war, in the sense that I think war should not be used a foreign policy tool, but only as a last resort in self-defense or the defense of allies. So, say the general election comes down to Clinton and Paul (unlikely, I know, but Paul is the only non-hawk on the other side of the aisle). Am I still anti-war if I vote for Clinton? I don't like her foreign policy stance, but it's not the only issue on which I'm evaluating candidates. I'd rather have a hawk who supports the nominal separation of church and state, some form of public health care, reproductive rights, decent science education standards, etc., than Ron Paul's loony racist libertarian ass, as much as I agree with with his views on empire.

Perhaps Kucinich feels the same way about Obama as opposed to the other potential Democratic candidates. FWIW, I do agree with his general position here: he made his run, he lost, time to vote for the lesser of two evils. I still haven't forgiven Ralph Nader for sticking to his ideological guns in 200 and thus becoming one of the nails in the coffin that has burdened the world with the greater of two evils (last I checked, even he has now admitted that there is, after all, a significant difference between Bush and Gore) for the last 7 years.

[AndyH]

Originally Posted by Adam

...last I checked, even he has now admitted that there is, after all, a significant difference between Bush and Gore) for the last 7 years.

Aww, say it ain't so Ralph!

[Adam]

I'm retracting. I read that on one of the dozen or so political blogs I follow like a month ago, and now I can't source it.

[ShottleBop]

Nader Now Concedes That Bush Will Cause More Damage Than Gore . (This may not be what you're thinking of, Adam. It's dated December 30, 2000.)

[California Tanker]

I'm not that troubled by Obama's statement that you quoted. Obama and Clinton are right, IMO, that we need to modernize and possibly expand the military. I'm more comfortable with Edwards' position of streamlining the military rather than simply adding troops, but I honestly don't know enough about defense policy to judge.

I'm not entirely sure I understand Edwards' position.
John Edwards for President-A Strong Military for a New Century is pretty vague. What exactly is he proposing?

Just general musing:

Attempts to streamline the military by reducing numbers, modernising equipment and reforming the military to suit its 'more modern role' starting from back in the Bush I and then more so in the mid/late Clinton years has somewhat backfired.

Objective #1 was to downsize the force, which is reasonable enough, and to retain excellent conventional warfighting capability with projects like Crusader, Buford, Abrams SEP, Raptor, Seawolf and Commanche. Unfortunately, these top-of-the-line systems, force multipliers as the military calls them, come out bloody expensive. This shouldn't be a surprise, we're trying to use seriously advanced technology to make up for a lack of numbers, it's not going to be cheap. Of course, spending money on the military tends to be politically unpopular, so some axes were swung. Some were cancelled before they quite got the things to work (Commanche, Crusader), some were cancelled as soon as they had been accepted and the first couple built (Buford) and some were simply cut back to much smaller numbers in the hope that they could invent something cheaper or more 'General Purpose' (Seawolf, Abrams SEP, Raptor). What ended up happening, of course, is that the 'somethings cheaper' ended up not actually any cheaper (Virginia) or worse, have come to effective dead-ends (FCS) and the military's basically worse off than it would have been had they just stayed on track and spent the money, it's currently using legacy equipment which is now mostly a generation old. It's still far better than anyone we're likely to fight in the near future, but older and less capable on a per-soldier basis than we would have been.

Objective #2 was to make the military more mobile, more suited to rapid-response missions around the world. This is reasonable enough and the reason that the Stryker SBCTs came along, which also cost billions of dollars to reconfigure the Army... money which was no longer available to fund the conventional force-multiplier technologies.

As a result, we've ended up with a sort of 'jack-of-all-trades' military. Contrary to what you see on the Discovery Channel, we do not have the world's best tank, the world's best artillery piece, the world's best battlefield management system, the world's best rifle, or most anything else. We do have the world's best fighter (Raptor) or submarine (Seawolf), but remember, those were legacy systems designed under the pre-cost-cutting era, and we don't have even near as many of either as was initially identified as required, resulting in the retainment of a lot of legacy systems (eg Eagle, Los Angeles) to make up the numbers and capability.

The absolute major problem with technology as a force multiplier, however, is that sometimes you just need old-fashioned numbers. The best fighter aircraft in the world can only be in one place at one time. The Land Warrior concept (Gearing up a soldier with every electronic gizmo known to man) may make him worth five or six enemy soldiers in a firefight, but doesn't do squat when you're trying to do presence patrols or meet up with locals in peace-keeping. One soldier, no matter how tooled-up, can only man one checkpoint at a time.

The requirements of the military have changed. Far more so now than twenty years ago (when all those legacy systems were still ten years old) the military has to be capable of assymetrical operations. The Navy's looking into 'Brown-water operations' (i.e. coastal missions, anything from counter-piracy through operating close inshore for missions like Liberia), the Army's doing counter-insurgency or peacekeeping, and the Air Force's had to focus heavily on surveillance and close support for the other two. All these are by their nature manpower intensive and require specific equipment.

The problem, however, is that this is an additional requirement: The old requirement of being able to take on and win an enemy in conventional high-intensity-combat (eg Korea, China whoever) has not changed, and they're not going to be any easier on the US just because we've focused on assymetrical operations. We started off in the '90s trying to achieve just this original capability with a smaller force with expensive equipment, now we're at the point where we have a smaller force, without the expensive equipment as it was deemed too expensive, and by the way, we've also thrown an additional mission at you.

By way of example, my branch, armour, has acknowledged a problem of capability and training: The soldiers are so busy training up to become dragoons (read TWATs.. Tankers Without A Tank) for the Iraq mission that their core competence of mechanised maneuver and putting steel on target has suffered. Some 30% of company commanders in a recent poll had, in their four or five years of service, never actually qualified on their vehicle. But obviously the Army thinks it needs a certain amount of tanks for its conventional warfighting contingency missions, otherwise it would have officially reclassified these troops as infantry and taken their tanks away from them permanently. Now, you can argue that the removal of troops from Iraq would reduce this stress on the system, but that is only valid until the next excursion, say Darfur or whever someone wants to go next that's not a normal tank battle.

There's no 'nice' way of fixing the problem. You need both manpower and money. Or you could take a totally isolationist view and never involve youself in anything, UN missions, humanitarian relief, whatever, but I don't think any candidate, at least on the D side, is espousing such a view.

NTM

[godfry n. glad]

I haven't found a candidate who shares my opinion on ending the professional standing army and reversion to an officer and administrative core of a militia consisting of every capable person between 21 and 45. The militia would train regularly and everybody would be on standby. Public service would be required for those 17-20, where entry roles in the nation's defense would be assigned and the individuals trained in their duties, a national defense training camp. Universal draft. High technology and massive weaponry would be de-emphasized in favor of truly defensive tactics of protecting US citizens on US soil. Sorta of a widened Swiss model with added reduction of nuclear weapon stockpiles.

But then, I distrust standing professional armies.

[Crumb]

gng

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

ending the professional standing army and reversion to an officer and administrative core of a militia consisting of every capable person between 21 and 45. The militia would train regularly and everybody would be on standby. Public service would be required for those 17-20, where entry roles in the nation's defense would be assigned and the individuals trained in their duties, a national defense training camp. Universal draft. High technology and massive weaponry would be de-emphasized in favor of truly defensive tactics of protecting US citizens on US soil. Sorta of a widened Swiss model with added reduction of nuclear weapon stockpiles

There's something of a compromise solution I've heard, which is to basically re-role all the high intensity combat units into the National Guard, with the professional army being suited primarily for rapid-response or humanitarian roles with just enough heavy units to meet emergencies. The theory is that if you're going to go invade someone, you're going to have ample time to activate the reserves and get the equipment shipped to where it needs to be, and with the Navy and Air Force up to speed, there's little chance of the war getting to you before you can mobilise these reserve units. (Assuming nobody lobs an nuke your direction, of course: Lots of reservists live in cities!)

You can view it as an extension of the Abrams Doctrine taken to extremes.

Universal conscription, however, is going to be highly unpopular with the military.

For what they do, nukes are rather cost-efficient.

NTM

[chunksmediocrites]

The more I see of Kucinich the more I think Caligulette is correct that Kucinich is a willing tool of the Democratic party, trying to keep the anti-war vote in the Democratic fold.


Chuck F said:

Now, about Kucinich. I agree with Kucinich about a lot of domestic issues, but I think his foreign policy is just shit-awful. Reading through his website on foreign policy, which is at the top of his "Issues" section, makes me wince. First, Kucinich, like too many people and most all of the media, hasn't figured out that just being anti-war is not a foreign policy in and of itself. Second, his rejection of war as a tool of foreign policy strikes me as untenable. The ability to project force rapidly and effectively underlies much of the world political structure. He has two pretty big howlers in the very first paragraph of the page linked above:

Kucinich could use quite a bit more depth to his foreign policy statements. At the same time, I think our leaders with horrible domestic policies are in part driving our foreign policy. Our dependence on foreign oil and our massive consumption of resources, tied with outspending the rest of the world combined on our military, ongoing privatization efforts in the US, and crumbling domestic infrastructure, point squarely at a nation that bases its power and status in the world on use of force and threat. I don't have a problem with a nation that can defend its interests; I simply don't want those interests to be defined as maintaining the military industrial complex as our manufacturing base (built in part on prison labor) and claiming 30% of the resources in the world as ours by right of having the biggest guns and appetites.

I don't see a problem with getting rid of the new generation of nuclear weapons we are now developing, reducing our stockpile from 10,000 (okay, 5,000 operational) to 10% of that, not putting in the bogus 'missile shield' in Europe, not developing the laser platforms in space, not maintaining military bases all over the world, not building submarines the size of aircraft carriers, not militarily outspending our closest rival China almost 10 to one. That's my thought on the subject, not Kucinich's.

I am in favor of giving the UN more backing, and spending our efforts for the next decade or two on making sure the US doesn't devolve into a wrecked shell, as the rest of the advanced nations pass us by. If we get off foreign oil and maybe even encourage manufacturing and buying internally, we might stop going to bed with numerous nations whose governments and human rights records have nothing to commend.

Adam said:

FWIW, I do agree with his general position here: he made his run, he lost, time to vote for the lesser of two evils. I still haven't forgiven Ralph Nader for sticking to his ideological guns in 2000 and thus becoming one of the nails in the coffin that has burdened the world with the greater of two evils

I think the story about Nader spoiling the election is political whitewash the Democratic party faithful use to explain away the failures of the candidates and their campaigns. Similar to the 'liberal media' spin that the Republicans use to explain away their failures. Here's an interesting analysis of who voted for Nader and how that affected the election- one of the more interesting points they make is the fair number of registered Democrats who voted for Bush.

Also, I hate the idea that there isn't enough room in our political system for more voices and more candidates, and I resent the idea that political realism means don't vote for who you think most closely represents your views in favor of voting for who you think will beat the other candidate, and that candidates that run on principle are 'spoilers'. Should Nader tell everybody that Gore lost Nader the election because Gore refused to bow out?

[Caligulette]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

I think the story about Nader spoiling the election is political whitewash the Democratic party faithful use to explain away the failures of the candidates and their campaigns. Similar to the 'liberal media' spin that the Republicans use to explain away their failures. Here's an interesting analysis of who voted for Nader and how that affected the election- one of the more interesting points they make is the fair number of registered Democrats who voted for Bush.

Also, I hate the idea that there isn't enough room in our political system for more voices and more candidates, and I resent the idea that political realism means don't vote for who you think most closely represents your views in favor of voting for who you think will beat the other candidate, and that candidates that run on principle are 'spoilers'. Should Nader tell everybody that Gore lost Nader the election because Gore refused to bow out?

There was, as many might recall, a lot more going on in the 2000 elections which lost Gore the office. One could very easily say that Gore's not standing up for the voters' rights and insisting that votes actually be counted had a hand in it.

Make no mistake, I am no Nader fan (well, no Nader-as-politician fan. Nader as consumer activist, yes), but as someone who was a poll worker (in California) that year, and who knew what the rules regarding spoiled ballots were (including the you get three chances aspect of things, which was not adhered to in Florida), watching the whole think nearly gave me a heart attack. Turns out that when things actually *were* counted, Gore won the state. By then it was far too late, of course, as the other guy'd already moved in and changed the locks.

Funny thing is, Kerry pulled the same thing in 2004- not insisting that Ohio's votes be counted before conceding. The Dems also pulled every legal and a few not quite legal, and certainly not ethical, trick in the book to keep Nader and any other third leftish party off the ballot. We saw the same thing in the 2006 elections.

We also saw, in Oregon, the passage of a state law with support from both parties, and sponsorship from the Dems which made it near impossible for a third party or independent candidate to get on the ballott. This was done very quietly in July of '05, but not announced until January of '06.

The law had to do with nominating petitions. Anyone who voted in a primary for any partisan candidate for any office would have their name stricken from any nominating petition for the third or independent. Whether the signature or the vote came first bore no weight. This does rankle me on both a personal and political level- as we came within 93 valid signatures of qualifying.

Now, the thing is- the Democratic Party folks like to pretend they are fighting for the "little guy"- this is clearly not so, going by their tactics and their policies. Their consistent funding of the war, voting for the Military Commission Act of 2006, the Patriot Acts one and two, and etc belie their claims of being in favour of democratic rights for the people here, or of the idea of self determination for the peoples in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for Kucinich, it is seldom mentioned that in 2001, shortly after the attacks in NY and DC, he voted in favour of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists", thus allowing Bush Administration to begin the war in Afghanistan and curtail democratic rights.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Also, I hate the idea that there isn't enough room in our political system for more voices and more candidates, and I resent the idea that political realism means don't vote for who you think most closely represents your views in favor of voting for who you think will beat the other candidate, and that candidates that run on principle are 'spoilers'. Should Nader tell everybody that Gore lost Nader the election because Gore refused to bow out?

Ya know, as much as I wish the US had a system that had room for more than two parties, guess what? It doesn't. We have a first past the post, winner take all, system, and as much as I hate that, and wish we had a more equitable, parliamentary system, under which we could vote our consciences, that's the system we have. Waterheads like Ralph Nader and all the assholes that voted for him can pretend otherwise, but the reality is that, if you misunderstand how American politics works to the degree that you let the perfect become the enemy of the good, you're part of the problem. Now, Nader isn't the only reason Gore lost. His own mediocre campaign and the eagerness with which the news media jumped on the 'OMG GORE IS TEH LIAR!' narrative are the primary causes, but the fact remains that, without Nader, Gore would have won. As I said, he was only one of the nails in the coffin. But, seriously, to stick to one's ideological guns to the point that one allows the person furthest form one's owns position to win an election instead of the person closer but imperfectly aligned with those views? How fucking crazy is that? Nader, and those who voted for him, cut off their own noses to spite their faces. Fuck 'em, I hope they're happy with themselves.

[California Tanker]

including the you get three chances aspect of things, which was not adhered to in Florida

Does Florida have such a rule? What California does is of little concern in FL, unless it's a federal regulation.

Turns out that when things actually *were* counted, Gore won the state

Umm..
Online NewsHour: Media Recount: Bush Won

The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

See also this stupidly complicated report by American Statistician/NORC a few months later which was sponsored by a half-dozen media sources. (Warning: 51MB!)
http://www.amstat.org/misc/President...ionBallots.pdf

Short version:
EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - New York Times

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

NTM

[Caligulette]

I was under the impression that federal rules applied.

I will try to find the sources on the Gore winning. Otherwise I will concede- BUT I will not concede that the votes should have been counted.

Never ever. I mean- if they're going to make such a big deal about third party candidates "stealing" votes, they'd better have the decency to count the darned things.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Short version:
EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - New York Times

NTM

Of course he would. That's not the issue. The issue is that the Supreme Court interfered in a state issue, violating their own judicial principles against judicial activism and the US Constitution, which has, in place, a delineated process for the selection of a president in the event of no majority in the electoral college....it entails a vote of the US House of Representatives, by state, which, in a Congress where both houses were dominated by the Repugnatcans, which would probably have made GWB the eventual selection. There is no provision for the insertion of the SCOTUS into electoral processes, ergo the five SCOTUS justices who selected GWB should have been impeached, tried and dismissed with censure. Three of them still sit on the SCOTUS bench and still should be impeached.

[Caligulette]

05-10-2001
AP Top News at 11:35 p.m. EDT

Thursday, May 10, 2001

Papers Find No Clear Florida Winner

NEW YORK (AP) -- A newspaper review of Florida's more than 170,000 uncounted presidential ballots concluded that George W. Bush would have narrowly won a hand recount under the strictest standards for judging votes, while Al Gore would have won under the most liberal. After a five-month review, USA Today and The Miami Herald reported in Friday's editions that a statewide ballot review revealed no sweeping victory for either candidate.

Tomorrow (becaue I am getting loopy tonight) I would like to discuss what is known as "overvoting", or, roughly, marking the ballot improperly, and how that affected things in Florida.

And here is where I think I got confused:
Federal Elections 2000: 2000 Presidential Popular Vote Summary Table

With the overall votes total (for the nation, rather than the state of FL).

PS- I concede Florida. But that does not mean I will write a book about icebergs melting.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

The issue is that the Supreme Court interfered in a state issue, violating their own judicial principles against judicial activism and the US Constitution, which has, in place, a delineated process for the selection of a president in the event of no majority in the electoral college

The problem is that it didn't get to that point yet. Technically the lack of an electoral college majority had not yet been determined. When initially Bush sent the appeal to SCOTUS over the Florida decision, SCOTUS returned a unanimous order to Florida's court to effectively "Try again, and this time come up with a ruling which complies with federal law." So Florida tried again, with a result that the FL Chief Justice noted in his dissent "Lads, I really don't think SCOTUS is going to like this, I don't think it meets the federal law they told us to meet." FL's CJ turned out to be right.

It is true that it should have been a State-level-issue only, but the State level procedures still have to comply with the federal regulations, and the Federal courts are the guardians of those.

NTM

[maddog]

Besides even the state vs. federal issue, SCOTUS screwed up in issuing the stay/injunction/TRO to stop counting ballots. No such order may issue unless there is "irreparable harm." There was no possibility of "irreparable harm." If counting the ballots showed that Gore should have won, Bush could not be "irreparably harmed" by finding out that he was not the legitimate winner. Instead, Gore would have been "irreparably harmed" by stopping the counting. If counting the ballots showed that Bush had indeed won, there would and could be no "irreparable harm" to his position in confirming that result. There was no legitimate reason to issue the order to stop counting the ballots.

#1578

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

The problem is that it didn't get to that point yet. Technically the lack of an electoral college majority had not yet been determined.

NTM

Ergo, they should have refused to consider the case. Instead, they truncated the constitutional processes and proceeded with a constitutionally illicit judicial coup.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Ergo, they should have refused to consider the case. Instead, they truncated the constitutional processes and proceeded with a constitutionally illicit judicial coup.

Exactly so.

#1579

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

Nader Now Concedes That Bush Will Cause More Damage Than Gore . (This may not be what you're thinking of, Adam. It's dated December 30, 2000.)

Thanks...that's not what I had in mind, but it's interesting.